Hi Maxime, On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:07:15AM +0200, Maxime de Roucy wrote: > > > I'm not sure to like this feature in its current implementation. > > > I fear it will also create some new issues depending on how people > > > will use it. > > Indeed it should be use with care. > But for me it's as dangerous as the '--' option as '--' had clearly > been implemented to be used with bash globling. > However with '--' the sysadmin can filter himself the files list ; it > can't with my patch.
That's exactly the point. (...) > > > Other use cases I immediately see : > > > - some configurations provide the crt files in the same directory, > > > which will break things > > > - some others will store map files in the same directory also > > > - what about configurations with a README or similar in the > > > directory ? or swap files because someone else is editing a file at > > > the same time ? > > The last point is a very good one I think, swap files can easily be > forgotten. > The previous ones are more controversial for me as with my patch the > directory itself become a configuration "file". If sysadmin put "trash" > in it, it's the same as if he put "trash" in a configuration file??? it's > not haproxy's fault if it fail. > > However, I agree that we should implement some safeguards. User error can be addressed with good documentation, and stupidity with a baseball bat. But we need to protect the user against issues he's not aware of (swap files, backup files, core files if the editor dies, etc). > > I think that before going further we should start by trying to > > define what we want to see and what we don't want. > > Maybe a solution could be to at least impose a file name extension > > (eg: .cfg), and I'm not sure it's enough. For example what should we > > do with symlinks, some will prefer to follow them, others not to. > > Most likely we should skip all dot files, etc. > > I think the discussion should go on before we go further with the > > code. > > OK. > > For me we should add a filter on file name ; keeping only ending with > ".cfg" and not starting with ".". I do think that it could be sufficient but I have not thought about it for a long time, so I could be missing some cases. > I vote for following symlinks, as the implementation currently does. > It means less work for me :-) ??? Joking aside, I don't see any point > against it and sysadmins will assume it does except if it's explicitly > said in the docs (docs which I should complet regarding this point). Yes I think you're right. Also it matches the output of "grep" when admins search for something (eg: a domain name). And it allows to share some elements between multiple directories if needed (eg: defaults sections). Regards, Willy
